120 6.8 angulon question

[false_Aesthetic]

Hey,


Shooting with a 120 6.8 angulon (single coated) SN makes it from the 50s I believe.


Sometimes I get the feeling that the lens is softish (looking at a 32x40 print--its noticible at 24x30 too). It definately seems softer than when I shoot with a 90 on my RZ (enlarging to 24x30).

Is the lens slightly soft?
Am I crazy?
Is this a result of it being single coated?
Should I not be compairing it to a med. format lens?

And, if it is inherently softish what might you suggest I buy as a replacement? ($300 range... max $400)

Thanks
T

[Frank Petronio]

You might try a test shooting it stopped down >f/32. When I had a 90 Angulon I wasn't very impressed until f/32, where it became (to my eye, not a test chart) as sharp as a modern 90mm lens. Also are you printing from the Angulon with a little more contrasty paper or process than the RZ? The Mamiya lenses are very sharp but sometimes at the expense of other qualites IMHO.

[false_Aesthetic]

Frank,

I'm scanning my film on an Imacon and printing 24x30 (both RZ and 4x5 film).

While I understand that the analog --> digital process "softens" the image, it still seems that the angulon is softer....... if i blow it up further the softness becomes unacceptable.

I've shot from 6.8-32 and they all seem soft to me.


T.

[Bill_1856]

Angulons were noted in their day for highly variable quality from lens to lens. You may indeed have a lemon.

[Ole Tjugen]

One unique "feature" of the Angulon design is that only the outer element in each cell is mounted in the barrel; the others are only held in place by the cement. That induces a risk of "creep", especially if the lens is stored on edge in a warm place. Decentered elements give a soft image.

Good Angulons should always be stored flat.

I've blown up an image from a 165mm f:6.8 Angulon (used on 5x7" EPP at f:32) to 100x140cm - 40x56"), and it's still sharp.

[false_Aesthetic]

So, the question is, what should I replace this angulon with?

The angulon is supposed to be able to cover 5x7. I like the freedom that gives me.

It seems that most 120 lenses have smaller image circles. What should I be looking for?

T

[Michael Graves]

I've got a 120mm 6.8 that is sharp as a tack as long as it's stopped down to f11 or f16. It's a bit soft at wider apertures and diffraction is noticable at f32. f22 is good enough that I'll use it when I want more depth of field.

One thing I've noticed about Schneider lenses is that they seem to be incredibly inconsistent. I had two different 180mm Scneider lenses. One was so damned soft it was plain fuzzy and not amount of stopping it down helped. I sold it for $35.00 as a parts lens. The other was sharper than a gnat's ass, even wide open. It got stolen. (Couldn't steal the crappy one, could they?)

A studio I once worked for had a 120mm Nikkor. I totally loved that lens. It covered 8x10 with a bit of room to spare at table-top distances. I never used it in the field, so I'm not sure how it would do at infinity. If I didn't have a 120mm Angulon, I'd be in the market for a Nikkor. I have three different Fuji lenses, and I love them all. But I'm not sure if they ever made a 120 with that much coverage. If I find out they did, my Angulon is for sale after I locate a Fujinon.

[Jim Galli]

At least 3 120 Angulons have come and gone at my house. I have a 125 Fujinon-W f5.6 that is the early single coated version and it continues to stun me. It is my most used 4X5 lens.

[Frank Petronio]

There is always the predictable answer: get a 110XL. Groan....

[Ted Harris]

Frank, right, groan but once eyouo get it it will instantly become one of the lenses you cannot do without.